Page 54 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 54
four critical essays on argumentation
increases the (possibility of) ambiguity as far as criteria and definitions are
concerned.
Replacing analysis with fixed lists of fallacies: the case of CDA
All the epistemological and methodological objections, ambiguities and
caveats on one side, as well as the practical, empirical multiplications of
fallacies and their overlapping on the other, make the study of fallacies a
thriving enterprise, a field of its own and in its own right. But, can we use
such a shaky ground as an analytical tool (as one of the analytical tools) in
another theoretical enterprise, within another theory?
Let us have another look at one of these theories, a Critical Discourse
Analysis (CDA from now on), more precisely at Ruth Wodak’s Discourse-
Historical Approach (other branches of CDA don’t use fallacies as one of
their analytical tool), a theory we were critically examining in the first
chapter, regarding their use of topoi.
What is critical discourse analysis?
Here is some more historical background. In short, CDA is usually associ-
ated with names such as Norman Fairclough, Ruth Wodak, Teun van Dijk,
Paul Chilton, Guenther Kress, Michael Billig and Theo van Leuween, to
name just a few. Their work is based on ‘critical linguistics’ that started
mostly at the University of East Anglia in the 1970s (and was associated
with the names of Robert Hodge, Roger Fowler and Guenther Kress), while
the work of these critical linguists was based on the systemic-functional
and social-semiotic linguistics of Michael Halliday whose approach is still
crucial to CDA.
In Ruth Wodak’s words, CDA
studies real, and often extended, instances of social interaction,
which take (partially) linguistic form. The critical approach is dis-
tinctive in its view of (a) the relationship between language and
society, and (b) the relationship between analysis and the practic-
es analysed. (Wodak 1997: 173)
Or with the words of Jan Blommaert, CDA’s sympathizer, but also a
harsh critic:
CDA focuses its critique on the intersection of language/dis-
course/speech and social structure. It is uncovering ways in which
54
increases the (possibility of) ambiguity as far as criteria and definitions are
concerned.
Replacing analysis with fixed lists of fallacies: the case of CDA
All the epistemological and methodological objections, ambiguities and
caveats on one side, as well as the practical, empirical multiplications of
fallacies and their overlapping on the other, make the study of fallacies a
thriving enterprise, a field of its own and in its own right. But, can we use
such a shaky ground as an analytical tool (as one of the analytical tools) in
another theoretical enterprise, within another theory?
Let us have another look at one of these theories, a Critical Discourse
Analysis (CDA from now on), more precisely at Ruth Wodak’s Discourse-
Historical Approach (other branches of CDA don’t use fallacies as one of
their analytical tool), a theory we were critically examining in the first
chapter, regarding their use of topoi.
What is critical discourse analysis?
Here is some more historical background. In short, CDA is usually associ-
ated with names such as Norman Fairclough, Ruth Wodak, Teun van Dijk,
Paul Chilton, Guenther Kress, Michael Billig and Theo van Leuween, to
name just a few. Their work is based on ‘critical linguistics’ that started
mostly at the University of East Anglia in the 1970s (and was associated
with the names of Robert Hodge, Roger Fowler and Guenther Kress), while
the work of these critical linguists was based on the systemic-functional
and social-semiotic linguistics of Michael Halliday whose approach is still
crucial to CDA.
In Ruth Wodak’s words, CDA
studies real, and often extended, instances of social interaction,
which take (partially) linguistic form. The critical approach is dis-
tinctive in its view of (a) the relationship between language and
society, and (b) the relationship between analysis and the practic-
es analysed. (Wodak 1997: 173)
Or with the words of Jan Blommaert, CDA’s sympathizer, but also a
harsh critic:
CDA focuses its critique on the intersection of language/dis-
course/speech and social structure. It is uncovering ways in which
54
